1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-06127
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Although Applicant’s financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond
her control, there is not sufficient evidence indicating that they are either resolved or
under control. Clearance is denied. 
 Statement of the Case
On September 13, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E,
Personal Conduct. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
(AG) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
On September 22, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the
allegations in SOR Paragraph 1 except subparagraphs 1.b, 1.t, and 1.u. She did not
Department Counsel subsequently withdrew Paragraph 2 at hearing.1
2
 
respond to the Paragraph 2 allegations.  Applicant requested a hearing, and the case1
was assigned to me on April 11, 2016. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on June 6,
2016, scheduling the hearing for June 22, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled. 
Department Counsel submitted five exhibits that I identified and received as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4. I identified and received six exhibits that
Applicant submitted (AE A - F).  At the close of the hearing, I left the record open, at
Applicant’s request, to allow her the opportunity to submit additional exhibits. Within the
time allotted, she submitted one additional exhibit that I admitted and incorporated into
the record as AE G. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on June 30, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 36-year-old single woman. She is a high school graduate who
earned an associate’s degree in business administration, and she earned a college
degree, in the same field, in 2012. Applicant works as a contract personnel security
specialist. (Tr. 16) She has been doing this type of work since 2003. (Tr. 17-18)
In March 2012, Applicant was laid off. She remained unemployed for the next two
and a half years until she obtained another job in September 2014. While unemployed,
she relied upon her savings, together with unemployment compensation, and help from
her mother to make ends meet. (AE 2 at 2) She was unable, however, to keep up with
her bills.
By 2015, she had incurred approximately $53,000 of delinquent debt, as alleged
in the SOR. Since late 2015, Applicant has been in contact with her creditors,
attempting to satisfy her debts entirely or satisfy them through payment plans. Currently,
she has satisfied the following:
Subparagraph Amount Date Satisfied Cite
1.c $536 unknown AE G at 9
1.g $301 6/27/16 AE G at 10
1.n $160 10/20/15 AE D
 
In June 2016, Applicant contacted the creditor of the debt listed in SOR
subparagraph 1.o, totalling $1,363. Applicant settled this account, agreeing to pay $50
on June 23, 2016, and $149 monthly, thereafter. (AE G at 5-7) She made the first
payment, as agreed. (AE G at 5)
Applicant owes a creditor approximately $12,000 on four accounts listed in SOR
subparagraphs 1.a, 1.l, 1.m, and 1.q. In June 2016, she negotiated a $3,600 settlement
3
 
(reduced from $4,153) for the account alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.a. Under the
settlement, she agreed to repay the debt in $600 monthly increments, beginning in July
2016. (GE 11) Under another agreement with this creditor, Applicant agreed to repay
one of the accounts in $150 increments, beginning in July 2016. (AE G at 12) The
corresponding account that Applicant agreed to repay through this agreement is unclear
from the record.
The record includes settlement offers from the creditors of the debts alleged in
SOR subparagraphs 1.e and 1.h. (GE 13-14) There is no evidence of whether Applicant
has accepted either offer. The remainder of the record evidence consists of nominal,
miscellaneous payments to some of the other SOR creditors.
Applicant has federal and state income tax delinquencies from tax years 2013
and 2014. (Tr. 52) Her federal tax delinquency totals $9,000. She is satisfying this debt
through a $135 monthly garnishment. (Tr. 51-52) Her state income tax delinquency
totals $5,000. She is satisfying this debt through $152 monthly increments. (Tr. 52) 
Applicant attributes her inability to make sustained debt reduction progress to her
lengthy unemployment. (AE A) Although she remains unemployed, a prospective
employer has extended an offer contingent on her gaining a security clearance.
Applicant intends to more aggressively satisfy her debts once she begins this job. Also,
once Applicant begins this job, her mother will help her satisfy her debts by lending her
$20,000. (AE B) Applicant has approximately $4,000 remaining in her savings account.
(AE A)
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.” The
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person,
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by department counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
4
 
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of AG ¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations.” 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt.
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by a lengthy period of
unemployment. Through a combination of savings and unemployment compensation,
she has satisfied the debts alleged in SOR subparagraphs 1.c, 1.g, and 1.n. She has
settled the account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.o, and she has recently begun
executing the agreement, beginning with the first payment in June 2016. These steps
are sufficient to resolve these subparagraphs in her favor, and to trigger the application
of AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d).
Applicant contends that she will begin paying her other debts once her employer,
who has made her a continency offer, hires her, and she begins work. Then, her mother
will lend her $20,000, which she will use to satisfy the debt. Typically, promises to pay
debt absent a demonstrated track record of debt repayment have minimal probative
value. However, I am mindful of Applicant’s continuing unemployment as she awaits the
outcome of her security clearance application. She deserves some credit for taking the
initiative to resolve her debts, despite her unemployment. Nevertheless, in light of the
amount of the delinquencies and the conditional nature of her payment plan, it is too
soon to conclude that her financial problems are under control. AG ¶ 20(c) does not
apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
5
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by circumstances largely beyond her
control. However, given the nature, extent, and seriousness of her financial problems, it
is too soon to conclude that she has rehabilitated her finances. I conclude that Applicant
has failed to carry the burden.
Formal Findings
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
PARAGRAPH 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d - 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.n - 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.p - 1.u: Against Applicant
PARAGRAPH 2, Guideline E: WITHDRAWN
Subparagraph 2.a: Withdrawn
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
6